Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the GR33 Court Rule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Superior Court officials warn proposed GR 33 changes could increase court-appointed counsel demand and costs
Summary
Judge Fassett and court staff told the Cowlitz County board that proposed changes to GR 33 (court ADA accommodations) would remove a requester’s obligation to state a disability and would prevent certain funding considerations, which the court says could increase requests for court-appointed attorneys and administrative workload.
Superior Court officials briefed the Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners on proposed changes to GR 33, a rule governing ADA accommodations in court, and warned that the revisions could increase demand for court-appointed counsel and impose additional staff and financial burdens on smaller counties.
"There is proposed changes to GR 33... the requestor will no longer be required to provide what their disability is up front and the court will not be able to ask further questions about their disability," Judge Fassett told the board. Court staff and administrators said the proposal stems from a Disability Justice Task Force survey of court users and is open for public comment through April 30.
Court representatives told commissioners the proposed rule would remove funding limitations as a permissible consideration when determining whether an appointment of counsel is an appropriate accommodation. "It specifically carves out in the proposal that the funding lack thereof is not an excuse to deny an appointment of an attorney," court staff said, adding this will likely result in increased requests and more time-consuming documentation.
Daniel, a court staff member, described operational impacts: the court would need to track outreach to potential attorneys for every case, documenting multiple declines until counsel is located, which court staff said will substantially increase staff time and expense. The Superior Court Administrators Association (SCJA) has prepared comments opposing the change, and court staff said they will share links and SCJA materials with the commissioners.
Commissioners asked where comments may be submitted and requested staff provide the public-comment link and the SCJA opposition letter; court staff said they would circulate those materials after the meeting.
Ending: Court officials urged local review and comment on the rule changes before the April 30 comment deadline and said they will follow up with link and association materials for the commissioners to consider.
